Korea, Republic of vs Chinese Taipei: Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score
Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score over time
- Korea, Republic of
- Chinese Taipei
How they compare
Korea, Republic of currently reports 66.67 against 66.67 in Chinese Taipei, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 9 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Korea, Republic of ahead.
Korea, Republic of ranks 23rd and Chinese Taipei ranks 23rd of 190 countries.
Korea, Republic of has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Korea, Republic of | Chinese Taipei | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 60 | 53.33 | 6.67 | Korea, Republic of |
| 2010s | 63.33 | 59.17 | 4.17 | Korea, Republic of |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score, Korea, Republic of or Chinese Taipei?
- Korea, Republic of, at 66.67 against 66.67 in Chinese Taipei as of 2013.
- What is the difference in protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score between Korea, Republic of and Chinese Taipei?
- 0, with Korea, Republic of ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Korea, Republic of and Chinese Taipei?
- 9 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2013.
- How do Korea, Republic of and Chinese Taipei rank globally for protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score?
- Korea, Republic of ranks 23rd and Chinese Taipei ranks 23rd of 190 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The score for protecting minority investors benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator set. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB06-14 studies.